TEL AVIV: Yasser Arafat has always been the bane of Israel’s existence. But more than ever before, Israelis are wondering out loud what would happen if Arafat ceased to exist, or at least existed someplace farther away.

In settings ranging from the inner offices of Israel’s government and military to the pages and screens of its news media, Israelis are contemplating the most extreme measures in dealing with the Palestinian leader.

Should Israel give him one last chance as a peace partner? Or is he to be toppled, even killed? And if Israel were to dismantle Arafat’s Palestinian Authority — and, say, send him into exile — then what?

The short answer to the last question, according to Israeli political scientist Shmuel Sandler, is: “Nobody knows. There are those who argue one of his lieutenants would take over.... And others argue that (the Palestinian territories) might disintegrate into chaos.”

Judging from its actions, the government seems intent on coming very close to eliminating Arafat, without actually coming too close.

As Bar Ilan University political scientist Gerald Steinberg puts it: “Under the current circumstances, Israel should not be seen as determining or dictating the leadership of the PA.” But Professor Steinberg acknowledges that Israel may want to create the conditions in which Arafat departs, or is rendered irrelevant, or is toppled — without the blame being laid directly at Israel’s feet.

The government says its intention is to force Arafat to act against Palestinian militants by demonstrating that Israel has the power to remove him from power and destroy his nascent state. The Israelis are offering a choice: Guarantee our security, or we’ll guarantee your collapse.

This arrangement has long been at the core of Israeli- Palestinian peacemaking, but never have the alternatives been presented so starkly.

Despite the government’s insistence that it does not intend to do away with Arafat or the PA, Sharon made no entreaties to the Palestinian leader in a televised address on Monday night. There were no appeals to Arafat to prevent attacks on Israel in order to preserve the capacity to talk peace. Sharon identified Arafat as the man responsible for a “war of terror” being waged on Israel.

But the pressure on Arafat does not come only from Israel and its main backer, the US. More than 14 months of open conflict between Israelis and Palestinians have eroded Arafat’s popular support. Even members of his own political faction openly defy his orders to arrest militant Palestinians.

Arafat’s leadership also has come under increasing criticism because of the corruption it has engendered and because its commitment to democracy is faltering.

This pressure from underneath makes conceivable the prospect that Arafat could somehow be sidelined by other Palestinians. But this outcome still begs the question, what next?

Professor Steinberg sees three possible outcomes:

* The emergence of a “guns and suits” team of security chiefs and politicians, all Arafat proteges, who “understand the reality of Israel and who have a potential for pragmatism” in dealing with the Jewish state.

* A “worst-case alternative” in which the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, leads the Palestinians and deepens the conflict with Israel.

* A phase in which local commanders take control of their regions.

Steinberg says this period would last only briefly until a more cohesive leadership appears.

Tel Aviv University historian Meir Litvak disparages all the talk of the “end of the Arafat era,” to quote one headline in Jerusalem Post. The most likely scenario: “More of the same.” Although Litvak agrees that a sidelined Arafat is more likely than a toppled Arafat, he says neither prospect is as convincing as a continuation of the status quo.

To be sure, the two sides have spent years in the same tussle, with the Israelis demanding that Arafat do more to guarantee security and Arafat insisting that he cannot do that unless the Israelis do more to meet Palestinian demands for sovereignty and statehood.

Sandler says that Israeli proponents of the elimination of Arafat have long been stymied by uncertainty. “The question is always: Would that be better than what we have now?” —Dawn/The Christian Science Monitor News Service.